Sorry, just to follow up. Jan will probably post a new email now summarising the result of this thread (consensus to move forward) along with a few minor details of what he plans to do now.
On 19 March 2013 02:09, Jason Smith <j...@iriscouch.com> wrote: > We fell within the expected base rate of bikeshed discussions in a public > forum--no big deal. > > Would it be possible to post a fresh email summarizing this thread, > identifying actions taken or to be taken? > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 2013, at 19:19 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Mar 18, 2013, at 18:57 , Eli Stevens (Gmail) <wickedg...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Every single email I get from a github pull request contains a header > > like: > > >>> > > >>> Reply-To: mobius-medical/dev < > > >>> reply+p-111-0123456789abcdef-...@reply.github.com> > > >>> > > >>> And sending email to that email address causes the content of that > > email to > > >>> show up in the pull request. > > >>> > > >>> Unless public repos behave differently in this regard from private > ones > > >>> (which is what I'm using when I see these), it seems like we can > solve > > the > > >>> content mirroring issue *trivially*. Nobody needs to volunteer to be > > >>> online 150% of the time for anything. If someone on the ML wants to > > have a > > >>> reply appear in the PR, then you make sure the > reply.github.comaddress is > > >>> CCd. If you don't, then just send to the ML. > > >>> > > >>> Is all of the discussion about github PRs unaware of this current > > >>> email-to-PR-comment bridge, or is there some non-obvious inadequacy > (in > > >>> which case it should be spelled out)? > > >> > > >> Thanks for pointing this out, I looked at this as well, but then had > to > > write > > >> lengthy emails instead. > > >> > > >> My 150% number is only to illustrate the futility of this argument. > > >> > > > Are you considering my concern futile? I'm starting to be really > > > annoyed by the way you handle all of this. I passed sometimes to think > > > on that problem before posting a response to a somewhat > > > passive-agressive mail. I always said I preferred and I would be OK > > > for a solution that propose a 2-way channel. And this is not a theory > > > or anything (are you putting the hand on something hot before saying > > > it's hot?) it is a a clear concern. If we have a solution to do this, > > > fine. > > > > > > Now I also said I would prefer to not use github PR at all and would > > > prefer a simpler workflow than multiplying the code sources. I'm > > > working on a mail that will propose something like this. > > > > > > - benoît > > > > I have replied to all of these points in the past and I made my position > > clear multiple times. > > > > * * * > > > > In the meantime I have contacted Infra to sort out the technical details, > > I will report when I have more details. > > > > * * * > > > > Also in the meantime, two people have contacted me to say that they are > > afraid to post to dev@ because of this thread. I am fucking ashamed for > > us :( > > > > My apologies if my behaviour here contributed to that. > > > > * * * > > > > Everybody, this whole thread is a really poor showing of the otherwise > > amazing developer community around CouchDB. We value any discussion, > > questions and viewpoints you might have. If you have any concerns, please > > post them to this list. > > > > Thanks > > Jan > > -- > > > > > > > -- > Iris Couch > -- NS
